This week's splendid philosopher of the week (cf the rules), Wendy Parker, an associate professor at Ohio University in Athens, OH, was 'nominated' by my some-time co-author, Chris Smeenk, who has known Wendy since at least graduate school. Wendy has been a pioneer among philosophers of science systematically engaging with the role of computer simulations in the sciences (now becoming a more mature niche within GPOS [see yesterday's discussion on NewAPPS), more generally, and climate modeling, in particular. Her earliest philosophy publication, became a classic in the field. It investigated how in the context of the "messy" nature of climate modal evaluation conflicting complex models persist side by side. On re-reading, I was particularly struck by the sensitivity to the potential for systematic error in the whole family of models in her discussion. (She develops that argument in far more technical detail in a superb, recent paper, which critically examines various strategies/arguments in favor of robustness, including those favored by two earlier splendid philosophers of the week, Kent Staley and Jay Odenbaugh. ) I wish Parker could teach economists on how to live and even measure underlying uncertainty by working with such a portfolio of potentially conflicting models! [I may write about this in my philo eco weekly post in near future.]
Wendy is a role model because she is not afraid to enter in ongoing controversy within the sciences. (I believe that this ought to be one of the missions of philosophy of science.) Her work exhibits a healthy (and among philosophers of science too rare) skepticism about quick technical fixes. A very nice example of both these virtues in action is this recent paper in which she critically evaluates competing ways to handle the presentation of uncertainty to policy-makers. She offers her own proposal based on some criteria that she has developed.
All of Wendy's work is based on an awareness of how hard it is to do empirical science and how hard it is to get high quality data that really is evidence for anything. (No doubt she is drawing on her experience as a working scientist.) A very important contribution to this topic is this paper in which she shows that data "do not confirm climate models; what they might confirm, however, are hypotheses about the adequacy of climate models for particular purposes." Wendy offers informed, critical distance on science in order to improve science and how it relates to policy and policy-makers. Meanwhile, a large number of papers are in the pipeline, so there is much to look forward to!
Recent Comments